Putting the Lands Commission to work
The present New Patriotic Party (NPP) government, in its manifesto, has committed to ensuring that the turnaround time for land registration is reduced to 30 working days. This means that if one is to submit his/her land document for processing to the Lands Commission, it would take at most six weeks to get the document completed and returned.
Advertisement
This is against the backdrop of a prior commitment by the previous government (working with the World Bank and other donors via the Land Administration Project (LAP-2) to reduce the turnaround time for registering deeds (documentation of land instruments, on what is often termed “indentures”) to one month. Currently, however, the Lands Commission is estimated to be doing deed registration in a one and half-month period.
Incidentally, however, for registration of titles (registration based on land itself, and guaranteed by the State, but requiring a 14-day statutory publication up front; and with attendant adjudication, if any), the turnaround time is for three months; but currently being done in approximately four months.
Is it the case, therefore, that with title registrations, the current government’s target of one month is too ambitious, taking cognisance of the fact that the NPP Manifesto, on the face of it, never differentiated between deed and title registrations. Could land registration be done in one month for both types of registrations?
This article will show that with certain actions taken, it is feasible to process both deed and title documents in a month; or even less for deeds.
Attitudes, information systems and ergonomics
Indeed, the NPP’s Manifesto itself proffers the underpinning reasons succinctly: “Speed up land services and enhance the accuracy of land certificates and records by investing in turning the Lands Commission into a true digital organisation, to reduce the need for clerical or administrative paper shuffling and to free professional staff to focus on technical, policy and strategic land administration issues, where required. This will also ensure high standard of land data security.”
The above suggests three main points: issues on attitudes (working to ensure staff attitudinal change); information systems (fostering a digital working environment); and ergonomics (“designing and arranging things people use so that the people and things interact most efficiently and safely”).
On attitudes, it is clear that some staff of the Lands Commission are today engaged in behaviours that is fleecing the public through needless extortions before documents are processed. These recalcitrant members of staff, when found culpable, are mostly transferred to other regions rather than being suspended, facing the sack or being prosecuted, as the case may be. I have heard past executive secretaries bemoaning the fact that they lacked the courage to crack the whip because powerful forces intervene incessantly! Until we instil disciple, there is no way we can improve the turnaround time.
On information systems, the need to convert manual land processes into digital formats is critical. Re-engineering of the business processes of the commission has begun with what is termed the Ghana Enterprise Land Information Systems. Work on this ought to be expedited, involving moving away from the heavy reliance on manual processes into a digital environment.
On ergonomics, I suggest a second look at the ‘one-stop-shop’ concept, involving the front office and back office arrangement; but only in strict relation to the ‘co-location’ concept. The front office becomes the interface with the public in land dealings. This is the Client Service Access Units (CSAUs) of the commission where documents are presented for processing.
The back office is where actual technical processing occurs and must be kept “out of bounds” to the public, helping to allow “professional staff to focus on technical, policy and strategic land administration issues, where required.” Co-location would beg the question: What office arrangements would facilitate these processes so that the staff and things interact most efficiently and safely?
Let me firstly illustrate the above with the Accra Office. When on the Second Circular Road moving north to link the Giffard Road, the Lands Commission Head Office is to the west (right), sharing boundaries with the Cantonments Post Office; and to the east (left) is what used to be the old Land Valuation Board now housing the CSAU (front office).
The entire land constituting the Head Office and the Survey and Mapping Division premises diagonally opposite the El-Wak stadium should both be the back offices that I aver must be completely kept out of bounds to the public.
Client Service Access Units in Accra
Secondly, in Kumasi, the new one-stop-office building complex under construction (to house the Lands Commission, the Office of the Administrator of Stool Lands and the Town and Country Planning Authority) should be kept out of bounds to the public. As I suggested, this should be the back office.
We could then keep the present Kumasi premises of the Lands Commission or the present Kumasi Town and Country Planning Authority office as front offices separately. Thirdly, the Takoradi Office could be added and this suggestion piloted to assess its feasibility; and duly replicated to the other regional offices if successful.
One-stop-office complex in Kumasi
While the processes of the commission may be automated and networked, in addition, bus-shuttling or pick-up services may be used to send documents to and from the back and the front offices due to technical glitches or electricity outages.
For purposes of efficient delivery, officers must have meeting rooms in the front offices for them to meet with the public if at all necessary.
I suggest, in addition, customised desks to assist in meeting urgent requests: foreign investment desks; mortgage desks, etc., perhaps at slightly higher fees. The commission should install Close-Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras to monitor movements and have a clocking system to ensure punctuality to work.
It is, therefore, recommended that the commission’s Internally Generated Funds (IGF) should be judiciously used and prioritised. IGFs should never be used to buy saloon cars for management when staff ought to sacrifice in serving the public at this stage.
Focus should rather be on improving the image of the commission through positive changes in the mindset of staff, fully automating processes and creating some conducive environment to allow staff to work in a peaceful atmosphere.
Advertisement